[001]
JulianLapostat
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
1) As for too-much Napoleon. One the quotes are themselves interesting. I mean on the Louis XVI page, the quote clarifies the major misconception about him, that he couldn\'t possibly have been much of a tyrant, since History rarely allows justice to the Henry VIIIs or the Ivan the Terribles, its the weak-willed Nice ones that get the axe. Two, Napoleon, like it or not, is definitely a Great Man of History, or as Hegel called him, \
to:
1) As for too-much Napoleon. One the quotes are themselves interesting. I mean on the Louis XVI page, the quote clarifies the major misconception about him, that he couldn\\\'t possibly have been much of a tyrant, since History rarely allows justice to the Henry VIIIs or the Ivan the Terribles, its the weak-willed Nice ones that get the axe. Two, Napoleon, like it or not, is definitely a Great Man of History, or as Hegel called him, \\\"The world spirit on Horseback\\\". He\\\'s definitely a Son of the Revolution (albeit the BlackSheep) and his Italian campaigns and his imperial adventure in Egypt are key events in the Enlightenment and the Revolution. So to say, he\\\'s not a protagonist is stretching it, especially since the Revolution had a huge cast of colourful larger-than-life figures. He was still a Republican General when he undertook those expeditions. He abandoned his soldiers in Egypt after getting word that the Directory might be ripe for a coup (and that Josephine was cheating on him) and then Abbe Sieyes foolishly handed the government to him on a silver platter. Not mentioning Napoleon in relation to the revolution would give readers the impression that he arrived fully formed of the brow of Zeus. In other cases, some prominent figures like De Sade or Thomas-Alexandre Dumas (who\\\'s unlikely to get his own page) got screwed over by him as well. And then we mention some of Napoleon\\\'s future partners - Sieyes, Barras, Fouche and Talleyrand who were key figures in their own right in this time. Napoleon is the sequel to the Revolution as he was conscious of, as he said \\\"The Revolution is over, I am the Revolution.\\\"
2) I agree about the Gillray caricatures. I mean we already covered how the Anglophone keeps portraying the Revolution in a constant bad light, vis-a-vis Dickens, and likewise Edmund Burke is mentioned (with the anti-semitic undertone of his critique presented there). There\\\'s no need to include every single point there.
I have no issues with the other points at all.
One thing I do have to ask, a while ago I made a ChronicBackstabbingDisorder tab for Joseph Fouche (compared to him, Talleyrand is UndyingLoyalty), who from what I gather is something of a scumbag (as per Stefan Zweig and many others). I think some other editor removed it by mistake. Any reason why I shouldn\\\'t mention his bloody backstabbing rise to power or the fact that he got away with it scott-free? Because there\\\'s no other way to mention him.
2) I agree about the Gillray caricatures. I mean we already covered how the Anglophone keeps portraying the Revolution in a constant bad light, vis-a-vis Dickens, and likewise Edmund Burke is mentioned (with the anti-semitic undertone of his critique presented there). There\\\'s no need to include every single point there.
I have no issues with the other points at all.
One thing I do have to ask, a while ago I made a ChronicBackstabbingDisorder tab for Joseph Fouche (compared to him, Talleyrand is UndyingLoyalty), who from what I gather is something of a scumbag (as per Stefan Zweig and many others). I think some other editor removed it by mistake. Any reason why I shouldn\\\'t mention his bloody backstabbing rise to power or the fact that he got away with it scott-free? Because there\\\'s no other way to mention him.
